A Sociological Study of the Political Subsystem in Yugoslavia

In this critical analysis of sociological studies of the political subsystem in Yugoslavia since the fall of communism Mr. Ilic examined the work of the majority of leading researchers of politics in the country between 1990 and 1996. Where the question of continuity was important, he also looked at previous research by the writers in question. His aim was to demonstrate the overall extent of existing research and at the same time to identify its limits and the social conditions which defined it. Particular areas examined included the problems of defining basic concepts and selecting the theoretically most relevant indicators; the sources of data including the types of authentic materials exploited; problems of research work (contacts, field control, etc.); problems of analysisl and finally the problems arising from different relations with the people who commission the research. In the first stage of the research, looking at methods of defining key terms, special attention was paid to the analysis of the most frequently used terms such as democracy, totalitarianism, the political left and right, and populism. Numerous weaknesses were noted in the analytic application of these terms. In studies of the possibilities of creating a democratic political system in Serbia and its possible forms (democracy of the majority or consensual democracy), the profound social division of Serbian society was neglected. The left-right distinction tends to be identified with the government-opposition relation, in the way of practical politics. The idea of populism was used to pass responsibility for the policy of war from the manipulator to the manipulated, while the concept of totalitarianism is used in a rather old-fashioned way, with echoes of the cold war. In general, the terminology used in the majority of recent research on the political subsystem in Yugoslavia is characterised by a special ideological style and by practical political material, rather than by developed theoretical effort. The second section of analysis considered the wider theoretical background of the research and focused on studies of the processes of transformation and transition in Yugoslav society, particularly the work of Mladen Lazic and Silvano Bolcic, who he sees as representing the most important and influential contemporary Yugoslav sociologists. Here Mr. Ilic showed that the meaning of empirical data is closely connected with the stratification schemes towards which they are oriented, so that the same data can have different meanings in shown through different schemes. He went on to show the observed theoretical frames in the context of wider ideological understanding of the authors' ideas and research. Here the emphasis was on the formalistic character of such notions as command economy and command work which were used in analysing the functioning and the collapse of communist society, although Mr. Ilic passed favourable judgement on the Lazic's critique of political over-determination in its various attempts to explain the disintegration of the communist political (sub)system. The next stage of the analysis was devoted to the problem of empirical identification of the observed phenomena. Here again the notions of the political left and right were of key importance. He sees two specific problems in using these notion in talking about Yugoslavia, the first being that the process of transition in the FR Yugoslavia has hardly begun. The communist government has in effect remained in power continuously since 1945, despite the introduction of a multi-party system in 1990. The process of privatisation of public property was interrupted at a very early stage and the results of this are evident on the structural level in the continuous weakening of the social status of the middle class and on the political level because the social structure and dominant form of property direct the majority of votes towards to communists in power. This has been combined with strong chauvinist confusion associated with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, and these ideas were incorporated by all the relevant Yugoslav political parties, making it more difficult to differentiate between them empirically. In this context he quotes the situation of the stream of political scientists who emerged in the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade. During the time of the one-party regime, this faculty functioned as ideological support for official communist policy and its teachers were unable to develop views which differed from the official line, but rather treated all contrasting ideas in the same way, neglecting their differences. Following the introduction of a multi-party system, these authors changed their idea of a public enemy, but still retained an undifferentiated and theoretically undeveloped approach to the issue of the identification of political ideas. The fourth section of the work looked at problems of explanation in studying the political subsystem and the attempts at an adequate causal explanation of the triumph of Slobodan Milosevic's communists at four subsequent elections was identified as the key methodological problem. The main problem Mr. Ilic isolated here was the neglect of structural factors in explaining the voters' choice. He then went on to look at the way empirical evidence is collected and studied, pointing out many mistakes in planning and determining the samples used in surveys as well as in the scientifically incorrect use of results. He found these weaknesses particularly noticeable in the works of representatives of the so-called nationalistic orientation in Yugoslav sociology of politics, and he pointed out the practical political abuses which these methodological weaknesses made possible. He also identified similar types of mistakes in research by Serbian political parties made on the basis of party documentation and using methods of content analysis. He found various none-sided applications of survey data and looked at attempts to apply other sources of data (statistics, official party documents, various research results). Mr. Ilic concluded that there are two main sets of characteristics in modern Yugoslav sociological studies of political subsystems. There are a considerable number of surveys with ambitious aspirations to explain political phenomena, but at the same time there is a clear lack of a developed sociological theory of political (sub)systems. He feels that, in the absence of such theory, most researcher are over-ready to accept the theoretical solutions found for interpretation of political phenomena in other countries. He sees a need for a stronger methodological bases for future research, either 1) in complementary usage of different sources and ways of collecting data, or 2) in including more of a historical dimension in different attempts to explain the political subsystem in Yugoslavia.

Changes in the Social Status of Women in Societies in Transition: Russia and Armenia

The project studied the way the post-communist transition has affected the position of women in society and two post-Soviet states, Armenia and Russia, were chosen for a comparative study. Although in many respects the two countries show rather similar tendencies, there are important differences. The most dramatic of these lie in the field of the women's movement and state support, in family lifestyles and public thinking, and in the perception of female roles in society by both women and men in both countries. Whereas in Russia, at least in large cities, it is possible to speak of a movement concerned with equality and women's rights, in Armenia there are few women's organisations and those that exist are most focused on support for children and poor families. In Russia, many post-Soviet changes can be described as a shift towards 'Western' rather than 'Eastern' values, while in Armenia this tendency is much weaker and exists alongside a relapse into traditional attitudes. Iskandarian suggests possible explanations for this, both intrinsic (tradition. motivation) and external (influences, neighbouring countries, involvement in wars, the economic situation, migrations, political regimes). Nevertheless, for both societies it is possible to speak of a growing awareness of women's needs and of the birth of a new tradition in family and public life brought by the post-Soviet winds of change.

Women's Dress as an Expression of Social Development in Bohemia in the Years 1850-1950"

The nature of Czech fashion was shaped both by the social environment - not particularly wealthy, modest, influenced by the Protestant tradition - and by efforts towards women's emancipation. This resulted in a rejection of unnecessarily quirky elements in fashion as early as the 1870s. As far as style was concerned, Czech fashion followed the Viennese, German and French, and from the 1890s also the English models, and also found inspiration in contemporary aesthetic principles. National political ambitions appeared in inspiration drawn from folk costume. Feminist struggles and sports paved the way for the acceptance of reformist and practical dress, in which Czech designers took an active part. These trends reached a peak around 1929, with the design of a complete "civilised" women's apparel, based on trouser suits. The peak periods in the development of Czech fashion were the 1920s and 1930s, when a number of top fashion houses were established and both fashion and society magazines with original fashion designs, photographs and articles were published. These produced a specifically Czech fashion, showing French inspiration but opting rather for an English style, which was artistically advanced, practical, luxurious and democratic. After 1948, fashion too fell under the centralised control of the communist regime.